We believe the proposed use is innappropriate due to the potential for excessive noise transmission from the second storey offices
Based on the prior use of this premises access to our property was invariably blocked by non cimpliant parking due to resticted paking under the building. The laneway is a public use laneway for access to a number of properties.
There is unsufficient parking for the proposed use activity.
There are privacy concern issues for overlooking the neighbouring residentsl premises.
Hours of operation for these premises should be resticted to normal businees hours of operation.
The premises should be clearly identified by trading name and abn and hours of operation.
We believe there are more apprpropriate locations for this type of activity in the counci
The residents adjacent to the proposed facility sgould be letter dropped by council
I would be happy to have a face to face discussion with the appropriate officer in the coucil.
All recent comments on applications from Boroondara City Council, VIC
It is unconscionable that the planning requirements for parking on site could be relaxed for this proposed development.
The currently mandated on site parking requirements must be enforced as a minimum.
Parking in and around Cookson St is already at crisis level.
I just walked past this property.
It is a travesty of justice what the new owners have done to this house.
Not one, but three holes in the roof and this is just at the front. The verandah is on a slant. The garden is now weeds and dead plants. It is a very sad reflection of what a majestic home it was before sale.
Isn’t the point of a heritage overlay to ensure that these properties are preserved for the next generation?
The council definitely needs to intervene so the the new owners cannot claim a win by saying the home is beyond repair and dangerous and as a consequence needs to be demolished.
One can only imagine the French provincial home that could replace it.
In summary:
This is a stunning residence currently suffering significant neglect from new owners, and is worthy of protection, restoration and minor updates.
Anything apart from this would be a poor outcome
Adding buildings would be a travesty.
Adding dwellings and subdivision would be an awful outcome in an area which has already lost too much heritage.
Further details:
1. The heritage value of the current building. It is an excellent example of heritage architecture. I feel any development should preserve all of the existing structure.
2. Traffic effects.The area is busy courtesy of the school. Cars of visitors and new residents of the additional dwelling/s will add to congestion as they seek parking. The proximity to public transport does nothing - the majority of Australians own cars and need car parking.
3. Inadequate green space
Boroondara has been inundated with ugly new multi dwelling developments
The gardens are significant and should be protected.
4. Effects on drainage/services requiring upgrades
5. Inappropriate density for Boroondara.
I am hopeful that any development of this site takes into account the significance of this heritage house as well as its129 year old gardens.
Below is an excerpt in regard to 7-9 Mangarra Rd from the Boroondara Heritage Review B Graded Buildings - Building Citation, Lovell Chen 2005 report.
Name: Shenley Croft
Reference No Address: 7-9 Mangarra Road, Canterbury
Survey Date: 21 June 2005
Building Type: Residence
Grading: B Date
Previous Grading: B
Extent of Overlay: To title boundaries.
History
Initially known as 5 Mangarra Road, Shenley Croft was built for Hans W H McNalty (or McNulty), manager of the Port Melbourne branch of the Melbourne Savings Bank, in 1905-6. The architect was John Edmund Burke and the house was built by O’Brien & Joyce. It apparently replaced a 7-roomed weatherboard house, which had been McNalty’s home since 1893 - before this date he had resided in Burwood Road, Hawthorn. Two rooms were added to the residence in 1908, the architect again being Burke.
The house was owned by Hans McNalty until c.1953, when the Sands & McDougall Directory of Victoria listed the house as being occupied by William Waterworth from this date. During 1960, the neighboring house was constructed, and the street was renumbered. Shenley Croft subsequently became 7-9 Mangarra Road.4 In 1963, R M James acquired the house. In 1965 he lodged an application for a permit to construct a two-storey brick addition comprising a full height recreation/music room and additional bathroom accommodation to the rear of the property. Approval was granted and the extension, by Blackburn Plan & Décor Service, was subsequently constructed.
Approval was granted in 1984 for the construction of the existing timber fence.
Architect John Edmund Burke was initially articled to Walter Butler and Beverley Ussher, who were noted for their work in the Queen Anne style, which was particularly favoured in the inner eastern suburbs. He then worked in the office of R C Gordon, Melbourne City Council architect before opening his own practice. Between c.1895 and 1901, Burke was in partnership with Robert M Schreiber. Burke initially designed church buildings in rural areas before undertaking commissions for private residences and commercial premises in Melbourne.
(G Butler, Camberwell Conservation Study 1991; additional research by Lovell Chen, 2005)
Boroondara Heritage Review B Graded Buildings Lovell Chen 2005 Building Citation
Description & Integrity
Shenley Croft, 7-9 Mangarra Road, Canterbury, is a single-storey timber Edwardian villa constructed in 1905-6 in the broadly Queen Anne style with Old English/medieval overtones, with early additions (1908) by the same architect. The steeply pitched slate roof rises to a hip around a prominent ribbed bichrome brick chimney while bracketed projecting gables and window bays feature terracotta ridge cresting and half-timbered gable ends. The house is clad with dark-stained shingled boards and the asymmetrical façade contains a deep verandah with timber posts and Tudor arch fretwork. Projecting bays contain bay windows and windows have timber-framed double-hung and casement sash windows with coloured glass fanlights. The entrance contains a pair of timber-framed multi-paned glazed doors with matching single doors elsewhere.
Assuming it was constructed, the music room addition of c. 1965 is set well behind the original house and is not visible from the street.
A tall non-original paling fence and gates screen the property, and the house is surrounded by mature native landscape which is supplemented by more recent exotic vegetation.
Historical Context
The subject property is located in an area of Canterbury that was developed and subdivided during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries for large mansion houses, which were set in substantial grounds, and more modest residences, such as the subject property.
Comparative Analysis
As a fine and substantially intact example of an Edwardian house in the Queen Anne idiom, Shenley Croft, 7-9 Mangarra Road, Canterbury, can be compared in a general sense with numerous other residences in Boroondara. One example of more relevance than most is Banool, 26 Victoria Avenue, Camberwell (q.v, B-graded), designed by Burke & Schreiber in 1899-1900.
Assessment Against Criteria
Amended Heritage Victoria Criteria
CRITERION D: The importance of a place or object in exhibiting the principal characteristics or the representative nature of a place or object as a part of a class or type of places or objects. Shenley Croft, 7-9 Mangarra Rd, Canterbury, is a fine and substantially intact example of a large, detached timber Edwardian residence. It is representative of the type of house being constructed in the area in the first decade of the twentieth century.
CRITERION E: The importance of the place or object in exhibiting good design or aesthetic characteristics and/or in exhibiting a richness, diversity or unusual integration of features. Though broadly typical of the Queen Anne style, Shenley Croft, 7-9 Mangarra Rd, Canterbury is of architectural interest for its relatively simple form and incorporation of a number of Old English/medieval references.
Statement of Significance
Shenley Croft, 7-9 Mangarra Road, Canterbury, is of local historical and aesthetic (architectural) significance, as a fine and substantially intact example of a large timber Edwardian residence in the Queen Anne style and incorporating a number of Old English/medieval references. In particular, the dark stained cladding, steeply pitched roof and crowning chimney add to its distinctive and impressive character.
Grading Review:
Unchanged.
Recommendations:
Recommended for inclusion in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay of the Boroondara Planning Scheme.
I have spent Xmas at this beautiful residence before it was sold. New owner wants to put 2 new dwellings (demolishing the back). With the front of the house, which is stunning, the windows are left open so that the water gets in and creates additional damage. There is also a hole in the front section of the roof that is not being repaired that allows water to come into the front section of the house. Are these actions (& lack of action) allowable or right? Can someone in the council please investigate?
The subject site is affected by a Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO) which among other matters states:
To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.
To identify flood prone land in a riverine or coastal area affected by the 1 in 100 (1 per cent Annual Exceedance Probability) year flood or any other area determined by the floodplain management authority.
There is an Urban Floodway Zone located adjacent to the site's western boundary. In this context, the subject site 2/1 Muir Street Hawthorn is located in a Plan of Subdivision.
The Plan of Subdivision of known as 1 Muir Street Hawthorn has an approximate fall of 15 metres from its highest point close to its eastern boundary, towards its western boundary. Its western boundary has a fall of approximately 8 metres westwards towards the bank of the Yarra River.
The proposal responds negatively to Clause 43.02-6 Decision guidelines of the Boroondara Planning Scheme.
The proposal responds negatively to Clause 42.03-5 Decision guidelines of the Boroondara Planning Scheme.
The proposal responds negatively to Schedule 1 TO CLAUSE 42.03 SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPE OVERLAY
Shown on the planning scheme map as SLO1
YARRA (BIRRARUNG) RIVER CORRIDOR ENVIRONS
The removal of the trees will respond negatively to the neighbourhood character and the surrounding context.
A part of the neighbourhood character and surrounding context is the dwellings predominantly being subservient to the streetscape and the use of mature trees as a visual buffer between dwellings and also between dwellings and the street.
The removal of vegetation especially mature trees and canopy trees would increase the visual bulk of the structures upon the site and the impact and dominance of their height, scale and massing on the surroundings and the amenity of adjacent sites.
The proposal responds negatively to Schedule 3 TO CLAUSE 32.08 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE, particularly 6.0 of 23/12/2020 GC172 Application requirements.
The proposal responds negatively to Schedule 31 TO CLAUSE 43.02 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
OVERLAY of the Boroondara Planning Scheme
Shown on the planning scheme map as DDO31 .
YARRA (BIRRARUNG) RIVER CORRIDOR
1.0
20/04/2021
VC197
Design objectives
To ensure new buildings, tennis courts, swimming pools and other structures are appropriately set back from the banks of the Yarra River and adjacent public open space.
To ensure buildings are presented at a variety of heights, avoid visual bulk,
are stepped back from the frontage of the Yarra River and adjacent public open space and use colours and finishes which do not contrast with the natural landscape setting.
To avoid additional light spill and overshadowing from buildings on the banks and water of the Yarra River, its adjacent public open space, pedestrian and bicycle paths.
To ensure sufficient space is provided between buildings to maintain views to the Yarra River and allow for the planting and growth of vegetation, including large canopy trees.
To minimise impervious surfaces to allow for the filtration of water and retention and establishment of vegetation and canopy trees.
If the proposal obtained approval there are risks that the land occupied by those trees may be paved over and therefore alter site permeability and overland water flows.
The removal of trees will unreasonably impact amenity of surrounding sites by increasing the spill and transmission of artificial light at night whether that be artificial light emitted in the subject site or elsewhere.
The removal of trees will unreasonably impact amenity of surrounding sites by displacing wildlife that occupy them and diverting that wildlife to adjacent sites.
On balance the proposal is an inappropriate planning outcome and should be determined by refusal.
Sorry but this is a massive overdevelopment for the area. There will be the usual decimation of tree cover and open land as well as insufficient onsite car parking on the property, resulting in street congestion which is unsafe for local foot traffic.
The traffic is horrendous as is, with it being a single carriageway leading up to to Balwyn Road for the last 300 to 400 metres going East. Past the proposed construction.
Unless the council our pro active and solving the traffic congestion, I am strongly against this. Not only for sanity of motorists, but the safety of pedestrians.
After 3 pm on a weekday it can take 20 minutes to drive from Whitehorse road to Balwyn Road with school traffic. 1.3 km!!!!
Please note this development site is also for a 104 place childcare centre! It is an over intense use of land in a residential zone GRZ 3. Our Boroondara Councillors agreed, 8 against the development and 1 for. The developer appealed and at VCAT 1 person decided it was ok so the development of both the 10 practitioner medical practice and 104 Place child care centre will go ahead. It’s too late to stop it if you don’t want the development. In addition, the over intense use of the land will attract more traffic and congestion to the immediate vicinity. The intersection High Street and Hartington Street is an accident waiting to happen.
It is unconscionable to allow a reduction in car parking as part of these proposed works when on street parking is already over taxed./
More overdevelopment on Toorak Rd pushing traffic and parking onto side streets. What is the end game here, council and VCAT. What’s your density target? Rate payers who moved here for space, green, amenity, family. Where shall we go, now that you clearly don’t want that for your council area here?
This is so great. It will be an opportunity for many more people to live in this lovely part of hawthorn. Fully endorse!
I'm writing on behalf of my elderly mother and her friends who live in the vicinity of this proposed development. They all welcome a supermarket in their close neighborhood. Most of them no longer drive so having easy access to a supermarket within close walking distance is very much anticipated and desired by all of them - four elderly women. We hope this goes ahead.
Stratos Vakkas
I will certainly support a “Coles” in the proposed location. It will be much closer than the existing Safeway. Competition will be a good thing. It will also tidy up a neglected part of Whitehorse Road.
In contrary to previous comments I would love a Coles here- as would many of my elderly neighbours - who have to walk to other end of shopping centre for Woolworths . I don’t know which are the 5 supermarkets - unless you count the small Asian specialty stores.
This would join the cinema precinct with the main shopping area. Would certainly be popular at my end of Balwyn. This is first I have heard of plans!!!
The City of Boroondara is one of the few councils areas to be lucky enough to have a wonderful selection of mid-century homes still standing. They are iconic and rich in history and architectual design, especially this home. The heritage overlay is there to protect these houses being demolished. I don't understand why a possible demolishion is even on the table.
Unfortunately due to the poor Boroondara planning portal I am unable to see the details of this proposal. That said the developer had known or reasonably ought to have known the property was heritage listed on purchase. If the council deems the property significant, as does the community then the demolition should not be allowed unless an equivalent design is constructed in its place. Heritage listings seek to protect our heritage and permitting the demolition of this building is inconsistent with that listing. The building is a great example of the mid century architecture.
A reduction in car parking will only cause congestion and chaos in this already busy shopping strip
The only car parking is at Leo’s Supermarket. I object to REDUCING CAR PARKING. And not another Wine Bar.
Council should not allow such an iconic looking home to be demolished , there are plenty of architects who could add value to this pRoperty whatever the needs are for the owner.
Our heritage needs to be preserved. These mid century houses need to be maintained for our future rather than the mansions being built. Our whole tradition and history will be removed. This is an amazing example of a north Balwyn mid century house and must be preserved.
This project should not be approved: it is a monolithic build in this location.
An already heavily trafficked area adjacent to exceptionally busy intersections.
A project such as this will just add to the local chaos!
Save Surrey Hills from anymore of these massive, unattractive blocks of concrete flats.
The design is too close to boundary & too many apartments for likely traffic impact
Could not agree more…traffic in this area is already chaotic and can only get worse. What on earth are the planners thinking of and what do they have in mind for the future of this area and suburb…..
Tell me how we all catch public transport!!! Delusional and idealistic that we can catch public transport.